Lava Shark 4G alternatives
Tap above to see alternatives.
Vivo X200 Pro alternatives
Tap above to see alternatives.
Lava Shark 4G

Lava Shark 4G
-
Unisoc T606
12 nm
-
5000 mAh
18W
-
6.67"
720 x 1612 pixels
-
50 MP
1080p@30fps
Vivo X200 Pro

Vivo X200 Pro
-
Dimensity 9400
3 nm
-
6000 mAh
90W
-
6.78"
1260 x 2800 pixels
-
50 MP
8K@30fps
2x1.6 GHz Cortex-A75
6x1.6 GHz Cortex-A55
1x3.63 GHz Cortex-X925
3x3.3 GHz Cortex-X4
4x2.4 GHz Cortex-A720
(wide), AF
f/1.6, 23mm (wide), 1/1.28", 1.22µm, PDAF, OIS
200 MP
f/2.7, 85mm (periscope telephoto), 1/1.4", 0.56µm, multi-directional PDAF, OIS, 3.7x optical zoom, macro 2.7:1
50 MP
f/2.0, 15mm, 119˚ (ultrawide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, AF
4K@30/60/120fps
1080p
f/2.0, 20mm (ultrawide)
1080p@30/60fps
SIM1: Nano, SIM2: Nano
SIM1: Nano, SIM2: Nano
FDD: N1, N2, N3, N5, N7, N8, N12, N20, N25, N26, N28
TDD: N38, N40, N41, N66, N77, N78
TDD N38 / N40 / N41 / N66 / N77 / N78
In this comparison, the Vivo X200 Pro with the Mediatek Dimensity 9400 (3nm) performs better than the Lava Shark 4G with the Unisoc Unisoc T606 (12nm), thanks to its more efficient chipset.
Vivo X200 Pro has a superior AMOLED display, while Lava Shark 4G uses an LCD panel. They have the same 120 Hz refresh rate. These phones offer the same brightness level at nits. Notably, Vivo X200 Pro has a higher resolution display, resulting in sharper visuals.
Vivo X200 Pro has a larger 6000 mAh battery for longer usage. Vivo X200 Pro supports faster wired charging at 90W. Vivo X200 Pro supports wireless charging at 30W, while Lava Shark 4G lacks this feature.
Vivo X200 Pro offers better water and dust resistance with an IP69 rating.